Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/index.php)
-   General Kayak Fishing Discussion (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   MLPA (http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwevb/showthread.php?t=24618)

Ilikebigbutts 02-16-2015 06:54 PM

MLPA
 
I support MLPA. why don't you?

bubblehide 02-16-2015 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilikebigbutts (Post 218808)
I support MLPA. why don't you?


Hummmmmm, first post. :you_rock:Okay it's obvious, but I will bite anyway. 1st and foremost, the recreational catch is statistically insignificant. As such, there is not a need to regulate it, with the exception of species such as abalone, due to their reproductive requirements. The science utilized, was not actually science, it was conjecture falsely presented as science. But by far, most importantly, if you want to increase a species, you need to be sure there is an ample food supply (what we generally refer to as bait). But in-fact, what has happened is that they have increased the harvest rate of the food supply; increased commercial opportunity (predatory species), while decreasing recreational opportunity. The fact is that our fishery is a public resource, however, the regulations passed down through this process, have further opened the flood gates to increase commercial catches, which by the way, the vast majority are shipped off to an unlimited overseas market. In other words, the overseas market wants to purchase much much more than they already are; their demand is literally limitless. This overseas market has already depleted many fisheries around the world, they are only beginning in ours.

ceviche eater 02-16-2015 07:24 PM

Well said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jorluivil 02-16-2015 07:26 PM

MLPA's were created because some bonehead thought that if you created a 'no fishing zone' all of the fish would run and hide in that spot, no one would catch them and they would be able to multiply because they wouldn't migrate into the 'OK to fish zones'

Ilikebigbutts 02-16-2015 07:39 PM

Haha ya like a gun free zone

Saba Slayer 02-16-2015 07:46 PM

CCA-CAL
 
http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...ker_CMYK-2.jpg

driftwood 02-16-2015 08:00 PM

Hook line and sinker there's a sucker born everyday. I can't believe some of you guys are responding to this BOZO. :toetap05:

jorluivil 02-16-2015 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driftwood (Post 218820)
Hook line and sinker there's a sucker born everyday. I can't believe some of you guys are responding to this BOZO. :toetap05:



..................Says reply #7

ful-rac 02-16-2015 08:14 PM

A new type of PA ....? The mlPA? :D

bubblehide 02-16-2015 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driftwood (Post 218820)
Hook line and sinker there's a sucker born everyday. I can't believe some of you guys are responding to this BOZO. :toetap05:


This country's laws and regulations were etablished on Blackstone's law's, one of the most important insights from Blackstone was that inaction is an action in itself. To lay silent is just the same as accepting what this ill informed, misguided person is thoughtlessly projecting. Isn't it time we speak up an be the voice of reason. I mean, the vast majority of people that support this utter nonsense, are ill informed by misguided people like the OP. The vast majority of those people, are actually open to reasonable logical conversations that actually dispel the crap spouted by people like the op.

Man, it can, at times, be difficult to avoid name calling.

driftwood 02-16-2015 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorluivil (Post 218821)
..................Says reply #7

Not replying to this guy just trying to warn others not to step into quicksand.

Ilikebigbutts 02-16-2015 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driftwood (Post 218820)
Hook line and sinker there's a sucker born everyday. I can't believe some of you guys are responding to this BOZO. :toetap05:

I just wanted an educated responses on MLPA

Cadillyak 02-16-2015 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorluivil (Post 218814)
MLPA's were created because some bonehead thought that if you created a 'no fishing zone' all of the fish would run and hide in that spot, no one would catch them and they would be able to multiply because they wouldn't migrate into the 'OK to fish zones'

Well spoken and to the point!!!

blitzburgh 02-17-2015 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer (Post 218818)

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bus kid 02-18-2015 02:05 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer (Post 218818)

Winner :cheers1:

Attachment 14711

Sdspeed 02-18-2015 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilikebigbutts (Post 218828)
I just wanted an educated responses on MLPA

Then ask a specific question and back-up your statement of support!

YakDout 02-18-2015 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilikebigbutts (Post 218808)
I support MLPA. why don't you?


MLPAs? Are those the few areas in la Jolla that are only open for Black Sea bass?

Silbaugh4liberty 02-18-2015 07:42 PM

M.L.P.A= More Liberal Policymaking Assholes.

jerryg 02-19-2015 12:15 AM

One may argue that MPLAs represent only a small percent of the overall marine environment but there is a lot of truth to the old saying that 90% of the fish live in 10% of the water. It's a fact that 100% of MPLAs exist within that 10% of the water. MPLAs impact the distribution of fishing pressure that once existed. Anglers are left with fewer options the areas that remain open are receiving more angling pressure..As fishing declines in these areas due to increased pressure fishing will be blamed for over fishing the open areas which will fuel the argument that more closures are necessary.. Closures may have very well led to the decline in marine life but we will stand to lose more ground.

Thus far any significant benefit to the fisheries that exist outside of protected zones remains to be proven... Instead of enforcing a conservation initiative that restricts the rights of the people to fish public waters we should be focusing on conservation initiatives that been successfully proven. We need to protect fish when they are most vulnerable (when they are spawning). This has helped improve our WSB and rockfish fisheries. Reduce limits and impose special restrictions for fisheries that are at higher risk. No one wants to see our fish stocks rebound more than recreational anglers. The fishing community should have more say in how our fisheries are managed.

Saba Slayer 02-19-2015 09:28 AM

Outdoors...
 
I just heard this and it seem to fit here...
"Teach your children to value the outdoor experience. Because what they don't value they won't protect and what they won't protect they will lose!

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...ker_CMYK-2.jpg

Silbaugh4liberty 02-19-2015 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saba Slayer (Post 219069)
I just heard this and it seem to fit here...
"Teach your children to value the outdoor experience. Because what they don't value they won't protect and what they won't protect they will lose!

http://www.bigwatersedge.com/bwegall...ker_CMYK-2.jpg

This reminds me of an article I just read today. .......


http://m.naturalnews.com/news/048652...m_tyranny.html

PapaDave 02-19-2015 02:57 PM

MLPA??? What's that?
:rolleyes:

bolocop 02-19-2015 03:06 PM

Questions:
1. Which one is legal?
A. You catch a fish fair but the current takes you across the line by the time you reel up your fish.

B. You catch a fish in MLPA but peddle/paddle fish across line and reel up in fair territory.

Don't know the answer but I would think one is good ethically and one is good law-wise. Tough to explain to DFG on A if only watching at the end. Tough to explain to DFG on B if watching the entire time.

YakDout 02-19-2015 03:21 PM

[QUOTE=Saba Slayer;219069]I just heard this and it seem to fit here...

"Teach your children to value the outdoor experience. Because what they don't value they won't protect and what they won't protect they will lose!



With this quote by itself, it is unclear to me whether you support the MLPAS or not. Seems the quote could go either way. When you say the word protect do you mean protect our fishing rights? Or protect the fish by implementing MLPAs??

momo fish 02-19-2015 03:40 PM

Dam! .. First post since joining in 2005?


Quote:

Originally Posted by jerryg (Post 219042)
One may argue that MPLAs represent only a small percent of the overall marine environment but there is a lot of truth to the old saying that 90% of the fish live in 10% of the water. It's a fact that 100% of MPLAs exist within that 10% of the water. MPLAs impact the distribution of fishing pressure that once existed. Anglers are left with fewer options the areas that remain open are receiving more angling pressure..As fishing declines in these areas due to increased pressure fishing will be blamed for over fishing the open areas which will fuel the argument that more closures are necessary.. Closures may have very well led to the decline in marine life but we will stand to lose more ground.



Thus far any significant benefit to the fisheries that exist outside of protected zones remains to be proven... Instead of enforcing a conservation initiative that restricts the rights of the people to fish public waters we should be focusing on conservation initiatives that been successfully proven. We need to protect fish when they are most vulnerable (when they are spawning). This has helped improve our WSB and rockfish fisheries. Reduce limits and impose special restrictions for fisheries that are at higher risk. No one wants to see our fish stocks rebound more than recreational anglers. The fishing community should have more say in how our fisheries are managed.


Zed 02-19-2015 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolocop (Post 219097)
Questions:
1. Which one is legal?
A. You catch a fish fair but the current takes you across the line by the time you reel up your fish.

B. You catch a fish in MLPA but peddle/paddle fish across line and reel up in fair territory.

Don't know the answer but I would think one is good ethically and one is good law-wise. Tough to explain to DFG on A if only watching at the end. Tough to explain to DFG on B if watching the entire time.

A is legal until you cross the line then it becomes illegal. B is never legal.

cabojohn 02-19-2015 03:52 PM

I support mlpa too...mostly because the fishing is fantastic and the crowds are usually thin.:)


I also support IPA's.

Iceman 02-19-2015 03:55 PM

MLPAs were the answer to a problem, just the WRONG answer! Regulate our fishery don't close it!

Silbaugh4liberty 02-19-2015 05:13 PM

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...3/18756161.php

Can't even make this shit up!

http://m.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDay...ad-fish-awards

Conclusion, MLPA is a big f#$@ing money scam in my opinion. When they outlaw fishing, I'll just have to pack on the yak, lol:p

Mahigeer 03-01-2015 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty (Post 219031)
M.L.P.A= More Liberal Policymaking Assholes.



Not so much so.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
You can actually thank Republican governor, Arnold who signed it to law.<O:p</O:p

Silbaugh4liberty 03-01-2015 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahigeer (Post 220361)

Not so much so.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
You can actually thank Republican governor, Arnold who signed it to law.<O:p</O:p

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't mean they're conservative. Most establishment republicans are Liberal as hell.

LSmoot 03-01-2015 05:08 PM

Many great comments above that I agree with, but couldn't agree more with Silbaugh4liberty. Republican does not mean conservative (although democrat definitely means liberal). The MLPA is what happens when bureaucrats try to make themselves useful. I'll leave it at that.

I wish there were a “like” button. Some of these comments are right on.

Saba Slayer 03-01-2015 05:18 PM

Kidding?
 
Come on...who are you trying to kid?
" Republican does not mean conservative (although democrat definitely means liberal)"

Nic D 03-01-2015 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilikebigbutts (Post 218828)
I just wanted an educated responses on MLPA

Let me educate you in English... It's either


I just wanted an educated response on the MLPA's

or

I just wanted educated responses on the MLPA's

MattRabasco 03-01-2015 06:31 PM

English.

bubblehide 03-01-2015 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattRabasco (Post 220377)
English.



LOL :doh:

Sir LJ 03-01-2015 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahigeer (Post 220361)

Not so much so.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
You can actually thank Republican governor, Arnold who signed it to law.<O:p</O:p

The republican party would've probably not wanted Arnold to get elected because hes very liberal for a republican. Arnold got elected because he won a RECALL election and a recall election in California is basically a popularity contest.

Silbaugh4liberty 03-02-2015 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir LJ (Post 220400)
The republican party would've probably not wanted Arnold to get elected because hes very liberal for a republican. Arnold got elected because he won a RECALL election and a recall election in California is basically a popularity contest.

I wasn't a California resident when that happened. Matter of a fact, I was in Okinawa when that happened.

Sir LJ 03-02-2015 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty (Post 220402)
I wasn't a California resident when that happened. Matter of a fact, I was in Okinawa when that happened.

yea when California was founded they wanted to be super democratic, so when a governor is recalled anybody is allowed to run for office as long as they have enough signatures and pay the fee. There were all kinds of people running at that point, such as porn stars and others that don't come to mind. Probably not one of California's brightest ideas

Silbaugh4liberty 03-02-2015 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir LJ (Post 220494)
yea when California was founded they wanted to be super democratic, so when a governor is recalled anybody is allowed to run for office as long as they have enough signatures and pay the fee. There were all kinds of people running out that point such as porn stars and others that don't come to mind. Probably not one of California's brightest ideas

Crazy. At least the last actor California had as governor before Arnold, went on to be President. That'll never happen with Arnold, even if they change the law allowing foreigners to run.

Then again, people could lie and/or hide/manipulate birth records!

;)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 2002 Big Water's Edge. All rights reserved.